Print |
E-mail to a friend
OPINIONS
Editorial: U.S. can't just turn off coal power
Coal-burning power plants have become a topic of debate in political circles because of the large amount of carbon dioxide they produce very year. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sibelius has rejected a plan to build new coal-burning plants in her state unless they use newer, cleaner technology. Meanwhile, utilities spend billions to improve the pollution control systems at existing plants, such as the Gavin plant at Cheshire, Ohio, pictured here.
Purchase this photoThe governor of Kansas has drawn a line in the coal dust. Her administration is fighting a proposal to build two new coal-fired power plants in her state. The reason: Each year, the plants would produce 11 million of tons of carbon dioxide, the gas that is blamed for global warming.
Gov. Kathleen Sibelius on Friday vetoed a bill in the Kansas Legislature to strip state regulators of any power to base decisions to deny power plant construction or expansion on the production of greenhouse gases. People who follow politics in Kansas say legislators who favor the bill may not have enough votes to override Sibeluis' veto.
Here is what happened: Sunflower Electric Corp. wanted to build the new plants near the town of Holcomb in southwestern Kansas. Rod Bremby, the state's secretary of health and environment, rejected the permit applications this past October because of the concern over greenhouse gases. The Kansas Legislature later passed its bill to strip Bremby of the power to make his decision for that reason.
Kansas gets most of its electricity from coal. The Sunflower plant would have burned mostly coal from Wyoming, and most of the electricity would have been sold to customers in Colorado.
In the great debate over what to do about global warming, the fate of one or two generating units in Kansas won't make a lot of difference. Fortunately for us, the states of the Tri-State have not gotten into that part of the debate yet. In fact, West Virginia has approved a new coal-fired plant that will use technology to burn coal more cleanly and trap greenhouse gases underground.
And Ohio has issued permits for construction of a new coal-fired plant along the Ohio River near Pomeroy.
Pollution from burning coal crosses state boundaries. It crosses international boundaries. Some mercury found in Western states has been traced to coal burned in China. That's why any attempts to regulate greenhouse gases, particulates, mercury and other pollutants from burning coal must be done at the national level. It's too big and the consequences are too varied for it to be handled by individual states.
And it also shows that utilities must continue to invest in clean-coal technology. For one thing, they must do so to meet regulatory requirements. But a cleaner environment is good business anyway.
American Electric Power, for example, is spending about $1 billion at the John Amos Power Plant at Winfield, W.Va., on a system to remove nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide.
The Amos plant burns pulverized coal. The new power plant AEP is planning for Mason County will convert coal into a gas, allowing it to be burned even more cleanly.
Back in Kansas, Sibelius said she's willing to allow one of the proposed plants if Sunflower commits to use technology to capture greenhouse gas emissions and develop wind power. Sunflower has said that isn't financially feasible.
We still have a long way to go to develop sources of clean electricity that can meet the nation's needs and demands. It's something voters should ask all candidates for federal office about, and gubernatorial candidates, too. The next president and the next Congress can go a long way toward meeting that goal, or they can cause serious damage to that effort. We need to know what the candidates' plans are. For West Virginians, there is plenty of time before the May 13 primary to get that information and use it to help decide who they want in the White House and in Congress.
